create_event

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds value beyond annotations by noting the return of event ID and HTML link, and provides a caution on ignore_availability. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond creation. Annotations only include destructiveHint=false, so the description carries some burden but falls short.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence conveys purpose and output, the second provides a critical usage guideline. There is no wasted text, and the key information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 10 parameters (3 required) and an output schema exists, the description is too brief. It lacks details on date format, attendee specification, recurrence settings, and other important context that would help the agent use the tool correctly. The output schema's existence reduces the need to describe returned values, but parameter usage remains underspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must heavily compensate. It only clarifies the 'ignore_availability' parameter; other parameters like summary, start_iso, end_iso, and calendar_id are left unexplained. The schema provides titles but no further meaning, leaving significant ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a new calendar event' specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions the return format (event ID and HTML link), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_event or modify_event.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on the 'ignore_availability' parameter, stating it should only be used when the user requests overlapping bookings. However, it does not offer broader guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, though the sibling names make the context clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.